Talk:Compressed earth block

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 October 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DamienJrSu. Peer reviewers: Emmaboiano, Cube Wang.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

What is NON EXPANSIVE CLAY?

?:( --Jangirke (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• See Expansive clay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aymatth2 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 26 April 2014‎ (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Earth block. We have a clear consensus to expand the article to include other forms of blocks made of earth; this requires a move, and "earth block" seems to have the most support. Expansion and further discussion can continue after the move. Cúchullain ^t/c 13:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Compressed earth block → Earth block building – A Compressed Earth Block (CEB) is usually stabilized, making it a Compressed Stabilised Earth Blocks (CSEB). Sometimes a Stabilized Earth Block (SEB) is not compressed, although it usually is. Three articles, for CEB, CSEB and SEB, would have huge overlap. The proposal is to move to a more general title prior to expanding the article. Earth Block is the name of a company, so it not suitable. "Earth block building" can cover all three types of earth block, and their common construction techniques, properties, etc. The term gets a fair number of Google books hits. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose any building block made from earth is an earth building block, including rammed earth bricks, mud bricks, fired mud bricks, etc. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• CEB is basically a rammed earth block. The technical term "Earth Block" is not used for adobe / mudbrick or brick. A hatnote can point to Earth structure for other types of building using earth. The concern is that this article covers CEB and CSEB, but the title rules out SEB despite the heavy overlap. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support Agreed with Aymatth's assessment.♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Earth block is a redlink on Wikipedia (and so is Earth Block), and a web search for that phrase produces many results that are independent of the company in question, so the idea that some company "owns" the primary usage of those terms and that there should be WP:preemptive disambiguation to avoid titling the article with that phrase (especially with "block" in lowercase) seems dubious. It is not uncommon for a company to name itself with a phrase that would ordinarily be interpreted generically, and we have no obligation to help them claim ownership rights to the phrase. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• I buy that argument. "Earth block" is simpler: a block made of earth, often but not always compressed, often but not always stabilized by the addition of some quantity of cement and/or lime, used for building. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Move to Earth block – that would be more WP:CONCISE, covers the whole category of stabilized and non-stabilized and compressed and non-compressed blocks, and would more directly describe the subject of the article, which seems to be the material rather than the buildings made from it. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Continued discussion on move to earth block

I recently edited the lead before reading the talk page. I read the article and determined the content was about compressed earth blocks (CEB) and stabilized compressed earth blocks (SCBE) so I made the lead reflect the content and changed it to paragraph form. Now that I have read the above move discussion it seems the article is supposed to cover all types of earth block including non-compressed blocks. However, in my opinion non-compressed earth blocks are the same thing as adobe and mudbrick which are currently in a merge discussion so there should not be yet another article covering them. I would have opposed the move, although I do not know what the article was moved from. Earth structure is a good catch-all article for the many types of earth building. Jim Derby (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• CEB and SCEB are modern systems that use hydraulics/generators to drive presses, different to many older technologies for earthen structures. -- Aronzak (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Which is what makes it a distinct product within the more general category. The article move was a total mistake, as it exapanded the scope of the article well beyond its intended scope and made it redundant to other articles. I am going to be bold and move it back. oknazevad (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

If you feel the move was a mistake we can have a fresh discussion. The consensus before was to move to "earth block" and expand the article. That discussion can and should also continue.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

If you see the discussion at Talk:Adobe#Merge discussion II, you'll see that the above discussion is based on factual errors that were never addressed by the above move discussion. There already is an article for earth structure, and for mudbrick, as well as adobe. This article has always been about a specific and particular type of technology. Expanding the article would be utterly redundant, and would leave inadequate coverage of a specific technology while other technologies within the category have their own articles. In short, it would be article hijacking, and a terrible decision. The consensus was based on erroneous understanding of the technology, and the extent of our coverage of it. Simply put, it's objectively wrong. oknazevad (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC) PS, per WP:NOTBURO, this is the fresh discussion, and there is agreement that the above discussion was based on error. It does not by any means need to be a templated move request. oknazevad (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, may be a case for another move discussion then.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Disadvantages section needed

The purported advantages of this building material are given in great detail. Nevertheless, I am sure that there must also be some disadvantages to it, relative to other materials. Otherwise, this article will read too much like an advertisement. Russ3Z (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It did read like an advertisement. So I added a whole list of disadvantages. I can think of quite a few more, like the logistics of drying the bricks, but at least these disadvantages have citations.... Oo, I just thought of another one...86.83.56.115 (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Ability to produce off-site and store

The article seems to presuppose production on-site and this may well be the most common usage case, but is this the only one? Can the bricks also be produced in a centrally located factory and then delivered to the site of final use? Or is there only a narrow window of time during which the bricks can be used for building? (E.g. They have to have a certain remaining moisture content to properly bind to other bricks in the building). While this may - for various reasons - be unimportant to current usage cases, those can change and it behooves an encyclopedia to at least address what is and isn't technologically feasible in principle... Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of it is for creating the blocks on the site, so not wasting in transportation and using the moisture that is the the site, so a place doesn't has to be mined. 38.140.18.131 (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Not suitable for earthquake zones?

Would require rebar reinforcement? 47.219.87.72 (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)